Follow-up on the ALAC Advice to the Board regarding PICs
You will recall that at ICANN51, the ALAC submitted a very controversial piece of Advice to the ICANN Board, specifically that the New gTLD applications and delegations for specific TLDs be frozen until appropriate public interest safeguards can be put in place. The TLDs in question were those referred to by the GAC as Category 1 TLDs in the fields of health, education, finance, charities and gambling, identified by the GAC as particularly sensitive, requiring enhanced safeguards to build public trust. I understand that this advice is under review by the Board New gTLD Process Committee (NGPC). Our statement has received a lot of notice, particularly by the Registries. A letter from the Registry Stakeholder Group to the ICANN Board is attached. They STRONGLY recommend that the Board reject our advice. Accordingly, I believe that we must quickly reinforce our position. I have asked Evan Leibovitch and the ALAC New gTLD WG to provide further details on the short statement approved in LA, so that it may be taken into consideration by the NGPC. The statement is attached. There is nothing in this statement that was not already implied in the advice we have already given, but it sets out the details in such a way as to (hopefully) make our advice harder for the Board to dismiss completely. As the Registry Stakeholder Group points out, a freeze would be problematic. We are not trying to cause problems, but we do believe that the public interest MUST be served. I believe that this matter is of extreme urgency. Accordingly I am taking the rather unusual step of requesting that staff immediately initiate a 4-day vote to ratify this statement. The vote will start as soon as staff can initiate it and will end on Tuesday, 18 November at 23:59 UTC. PLEASE VOTE AS SOON AS YOU CAN. Once the vote has received sufficient support as to ensure that it passes, I will notify the Board. Alan
Dear Alan, thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be short in my comments: 1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC. As such, when mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of ICANN51" -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51" 2. Some light edits are needed for clarity: "Representations from members of the ICANN Board that..." -> Representations from some members of the ICANN Board that..." "We are not aware of any multi-stakeholder input -- or any community input at all -- that was solicited in the creation of the PICs." -> We are not aware of any multi-stakeholder input -- or any community input at all -- having been solicited in the creation of the PICs. "That the only remedy available is after-the-fact is beyond the control of the ICANN community; no opportunity was given to fix it while in development;" -> We reject the notion that since the only remedy available is after-the-fact, it is beyond the control of the ICANN community: no opportunity was given to fix it while in development; "As a result of the above analysis, the NGWG prepared a statement, endorse unanimously by ALAC and read during the Public Forum at ICANN51, calling for a freeze on the most sensitive gTLDs (as defined by the GAC) pending a review of the methods to instill public trust in these especially-trust-sensitive TLDs." -> As a result of the above analysis, the NGWG prepared a statement which was endorsed unanimously by ALAC and read during the Public Forum at ICANN51, calling for a freeze on the most sensitive gTLDs (as defined by the GAC) pending a review of the methods to instill public trust in these especially_trust-sensitive TLDs. --- end of comments --- I'll make a copy of these on the WIKI. Kind regards, Olivier On 13/11/2014 08:01, Alan Greenberg wrote:
You will recall that at ICANN51, the ALAC submitted a very controversial piece of Advice to the ICANN Board, specifically that the New gTLD applications and delegations for specific TLDs be frozen until appropriate public interest safeguards can be put in place. The TLDs in question were those referred to by the GAC as Category 1 TLDs in the fields of health, education, finance, charities and gambling, identified by the GAC as particularly sensitive, requiring enhanced safeguards to build public trust.
I understand that this advice is under review by the Board New gTLD Process Committee (NGPC).
Our statement has received a lot of notice, particularly by the Registries. A letter from the Registry Stakeholder Group to the ICANN Board is attached. They STRONGLY recommend that the Board reject our advice.
Accordingly, I believe that we must quickly reinforce our position. I have asked Evan Leibovitch and the ALAC New gTLD WG to provide further details on the short statement approved in LA, so that it may be taken into consideration by the NGPC. The statement is attached.
There is nothing in this statement that was not already implied in the advice we have already given, but it sets out the details in such a way as to (hopefully) make our advice harder for the Board to dismiss completely. As the Registry Stakeholder Group points out, a freeze would be problematic. We are not trying to cause problems, but we do believe that the public interest MUST be served.
I believe that this matter is of extreme urgency. Accordingly I am taking the rather unusual step of requesting that staff immediately initiate a 4-day vote to ratify this statement. The vote will start as soon as staff can initiate it and will end on Tuesday, 18 November at 23:59 UTC.
PLEASE VOTE AS SOON AS YOU CAN. Once the vote has received sufficient support as to ensure that it passes, I will notify the Board.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be short in my comments:
1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC.
Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more as background to existing advice -- caused by the Board's need for more information -- rather than new independent Advice. ALAC has long had to deal with different classifications of what it votes on. As this document itself contains no recommended courses of action itself, I would not call it Advice. As such, when
mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: "The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of ICANN51" -> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé, at the start of ICANN51"
[...other generally-sensible edits ...]
Believe me, Olivier, given more time there is much that could have been refined, added, and maybe even taken out. Notably, more time would have enabled direct answers to the illogical Registry response that PICs can only be fixed through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a PDP). But doing even a usable statement able to actually be effective has been a fight against time, which is the reason the voting period is so compressed. Similarly, consultation with the gTLD WG was also compressed (and was not helped when the email thread started by my urgently asking the WG to review the original draft was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ). The Board is **now** considering its response to our Advice from ICANN51. To say this "backgrounder" was done expediently is an understatement. In the time it would take to incorporate your edits (and others that would be considered), the document will have been rendered nearly useless by not getting to the Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated. OTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing. - Evan
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond